..:: MAP OF WAY / Common Standard ::..

Common Standard:

Standardisation plays a critical role in various aspects of human life. In language, standards such as grammar and vocabulary are essential for effective communication. They provide a common framework that enables people to understand each other, fostering shared meaning and reducing the likelihood of misunderstandings.
In science, standardisation is crucial for ensuring consistency and accuracy. From naming conventions to measurement units, adherence to standards allows scientists to communicate their findings in a universally understood way.
In human rights, the same logic works. Merely saying humans have rights is not enough. Those rights must be specified and defined. In other words, all human rights must be included in a frame of standards, as the UDHR did.

The UDHR represents a significant step in standardising human rights, but this influential standard suffers from the standard definition of the terms and concepts used in that document. The lack of standardised definitions for terms like "dignity", "freedom", and "justice" could lead to ambiguity and varying interpretations. This could hinder the effective implementation and enforcement of human rights standards.
Defining and clarifying the terminology used in human rights discourse can contribute to a more robust and universally understood framework.
Without standardising the meanings of concepts, the UDHR is a standard document without standard contents.

The lack of standard definitions in the UDHR stems from the weakness of Scholastic Philosophy and its inability to render standard logical definitions for concepts. For instance, the preamble of the UDHR demanded "human rights should be protected by the rule of law," but even in Nazi Germany, Law was ruled. What distinguishes True Law from Non-law?
With the advent of True Philosophy, giving standard meanings to concepts makes that document understandable and opens the way for the "common understanding" that the UDHR demands.*

* Please consider the differences between "Scholastic Philosophy" and "True Philosophy" in Volume Four.